[Advaita-l] Advaita Siddhi series 016 - dvitIya mithyAtva vichAra: (part 8)

[Ravi Kiran]

Thanks much Subbuji, Chandramouliji

This helps a lot!

Bhaskarji - Yes, thanks, noted your point - Both prama-s  would continue to
operate in...

Regards,

On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 7:25 PM, H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Reg  <<Quite an interesting discussion. I think the differentiating factor
> is
> whether the bhrama is sopādhika or nirupādhika. I was listening to the
> Adhyāsa bhāṣya exposition in Sanskrit by Vidwan Ganesha Ishwara Bhatta.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-sMzll5GmA   (in the portion towards the
> end)  He said: the idea of I with the ego, ahankara, is nirupadhika bhrama,
> like the taking the rope to be a snake. However, the considering the mind,
> body as I is sopadhika bhrama, like the crystal-red case. >>,
>
>
>
> After considerable search, I finally landed on at least one authoritative
> consideration of this specific  issue in Vedanta Paribhasha by Dharmaraja
> Adhvarindra. . The issue considered  is presented slightly differently ; In
> the redness in crystal illustration. is the redness vyAvahArika or
> prAtibhAsika ? The conclusion is very interesting. Two entities are
> involved, namely crystal and red flower. If both of them are perceived (
> pratyaksha ), then it is sOpAdhika adhyAsa (bhrama) and vyAvahArika. If the
> red flower is for any reason not perceived, but redness is perceived, then
> it is accepted by vedantins as prAtibhAsika or nirupAdhika adhyAsa
> (bhrama).
>
>
>
> The relevant portion from Vedanta Paribhasha is copied here.  Page  67-68,
> Vedanta Paribhasha, Translation by Swami Madhavananda
>
>
>
> << यत्राप्यमसन्निकृष्टं तत्रैव प्रातिभासिकवस्तूत्पत्तेरङ्गीकारात् । अत एव
> इन्द्रियसन्निकृष्टतया जपाकुसुमगतलौहित्यस्य स्फटिके भानसम्भवात् , न
> स्फटिकेऽनिर्वचनीयलौहित्योत्पत्तिः । नन्वेवं यत्र जपाकुसुमं
> द्रव्यान्तरव्यवधानादसन्निकृष्टं तत्र लौहित्यप्रतीत्या प्रातिभासिकं
> लौहित्यं
> स्वीक्रियतामिति चेत्, न,इष्टत्वात् ।  >>
>
>
>
> << yatrApyamasannikRRiShTaM tatraiva prAtibhAsikavastUtpattera~NgIkArAt |
> ata eva indriyasannikRRiShTatayA japAkusumagatalauhityasya sphaTike
> bhAnasambhavAt , na sphaTike.anirvachanIyalauhityotpattiH | nanvevaM yatra
> japAkusumaM dravyAntaravyavadhAnAdasannikRRiShTaM tatra lauhityapratItyA
> prAtibhAsikaM lauhityaM svIkriyatAmiti chet, na,iShTatvAt | >>
>
>
>
> Translation by Swami Madhavananda  << It is only where the thing
> superimposed is not connected with the organ, that the origination of an
> illusory thing is admitted. Hence, there being the possibility of cognition
> of redness belonging to a hibiscus in a crystal, since the flower is
> connected with the organ, there is no origination of an indescribable
> redness in the crystal.
>
> Objection : In that case, where the hibiscus is not connected with the
> organ on account of the intervention of some other substance, and yet the
> redness is cognized, you must admit an illusory redness.
>
> Reply : No harm, for we accept this. >>
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>